In Australia’s climate change debate, the major sticking point between the Labor Party on one hand, and the Greens and environmental non-government organisations on the other, is over the role that “clean coal” technology can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. State Labor governments and the Federal ALP are committed to developing clean coal technologies as a way of enabling Australia’s coal industry to continue to prosper whilst substantially reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Greens and environmental NGOs maintain that “clean coal” is an oxymoron, are sceptical about the sustainability and economic feasibility of technologies such as geosequestration, and that achieving the required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions requires, in the words of Australian Conservation President Ian Lowe, that the world “burn a lot less coal”.
A good deal of confusion has entered the debate in terms of the temporal and spatial scale of the problem and possible solutions, and Australia’s specific national contribution to such solutions. On the one hand, ending Australian coal exports may have little effect on greenhouse emissions globally in the absence of action by our major customers to transform their economies on a carbon-constrained basis, as they will be able to source their coal from domestic sources or from other suppliers. On the other hand even the most optimistic proponents of clean coal technologies acknowledge that they are not likely to be making significant inroads into emissions from coal-fired power generation until at least 2020.
And there is the rub, at least as far as domestic greenhouse policy is concerned.
There is a growing consensus amongst scientists and governments that avoiding dangerous climate change requires constraining emissions to the extent necessary to prevent global average temperature increases of greater than 2 degrees Celsius, and preferably as far as possible below this level. This will require emission reductions of at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. To this end the European Union has adopted emission reduction targets of 20% by 2020 (and 30% if a similar commitment is coming from major trading partners) and at least 50% by 2050. The UK Labour government has announced that it will legislate for legally binding emissions reduction targets of 26-32% by 2020 and 60% by 2050.
For reasons which need not detain us here, the 2050 targets will almost certainly only be achievable if current secular trends of emissions growth are reversed and something like the 2020 targets achieved as a foundation for meeting the 2050 targets.
The major environmental NGOs in Australia support these targets and are calling for comparable targets to be adopted by Australian Federal and State governments. Environment Victoria calls for the Victorian Government to commit to a 20% emissions cut by 2020, whilst a coalition of peak environmental NGOs is asking that parties in the NSW State election commit to a 30% cut in emissions by 2020. The Australian Conservation Foundation supports a 20-30% emissions reduction target for Australia by 2020 and a 60-90% target for 2050.
So let us concede, for the sake of the argument:
* that ending Australia’s international coal exports will not be effective in bringing about emissions reductions in the absence of global action;
* that carbon capture and storage technologies such as geosequestration will prove both effective and cost-effective, albeit on the timescales envisaged by supporters such as the ALP and the Mining & Energy Division of the CFMEU (i.e. probably not before 2020).
We are then left with the question of what to do within Australia, and between now and 2020, and specifically whether emissions reduction targets of 20-30% of 1990 levels by 2020 can be achieved in the absence of a moratorium on new and expanded coal-fired power stations and a rapid expansion of the role of renewables in the energy mix (as demanded by the environmental NGOs), given facts such as:
* currently over 80% of Australia’s electricity is generated from coal;
* the Australian Greenhouse Office projects that by 2020 energy emissions will grow by 66% from 1990 levels;
* stationary energy production accounts for approximately half of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions;
* Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions are expected to grow to 22% above 1990 levels by 2021.
I am currently of the view that such emissions targets cannot be met without a moratorium on new or expanded coal-fired electricity generation and an expansion of the contribution of renewables to something like 25% of the total energy mix.
Needless to say, if such policies can be implemented successfully and achieve the required emissions reductions on an economically and socially sustainable basis by 2020, there will be implications for the respective future roles of coal and renewables in the total energy mix, here and in Australia, even if the optimists are right about “clean coal”.
NB: At present the NSW Labor government refuses to commit to the environmental NGOs’ call for a target of 30% reductions by 2020, whilst the Victorian Labor government’s greenhouse strategy accepts the need for a target of 50% reductions by 2050, but does not set a target for 2020.
.
It is incredibly stupid and short-sighted for Greens to sneer at the idea of clean coal technology. Coal accounts for just under 80% of teh world’s fossil fuels. Countries like China and the US have huge coal reserves and it is inconceivable that they will not use it. Hence, if Australia is to “punch above its weight” in reducing global GHG, the current approach of developing clean coal technology is appropriate as we can export such technology to major coal users.
Those who doubt the efficacy of geosequestration are generally unaware that it has been used for more than a decade without incident, for example by Norway in the North Sea.
It should also be noted that it is extremely unlikely that major base load solar, geothermal or wind power stations could be up and running anywhere near 2020.
There is much more the Government should doing. There is a huge potential to promote energy efficiencies and alternatives like solar should be getting extra funding.
Bob Brown’s suggestion that Australia stop exporting coal is stupid beyond belief. Although I am a party member I nevertheless think he should be slapped about the chops with a frozen snapper for making such a dumb comment.
Shame Bob, shame.
Steve,
Clean coal technology
Doesn’t currently exist. Even if it can be developed (ie if the research being undertaken yields positive results) the “lag time” between development of the technology and its implementation means that, in all probability it will be too late for it to play a significant role in amelioration of the threats posed by the accumulation of “greenhouse” gas in the upper atmosphere.
To devote huge amounts of $$ to an unproven technology, while, for all intents and purposes, ignoring the proven technologies which already exist, and which do provide immediate benefits in terms of the threats referred to, seems pretty crazy to me.
Geosequestration
Given that the aim of geosequestration is to remove greenhouse gas (CO2) from the environment permanently, the 10 year experience of Norway can hardly be regarded as definitive. For this technology to work, the gas must be secured for periods orders of magnitude greater than our civilisation has existed, and there is little evidence to suggest that we are capable, or know enough about plate tectonics and geology to be able to do this successfully.
Clearly, the success or otherwise of this technology is purely speculative, and, once again, it suffers from the “time lag” inherent between research and implementation which is a also characteristic of the “clean coal” technological dream.
To reiterate, to devote huge amounts of $$ to technological dreams, which would be better spent on implementation of proven technologies seems farcical, at best.
Alternatives
Well, that is a matter of opinion, and the fact is that these technologies are already well developed (with the possible exception of geothermal power), and proven (in terms of greenhouse gas reduction), provides a clear advantage to such technologies, in any timeline for their implementation. This is particularly so, when it is realised the the competing technologies are so far merely speculative at best.
If the funding model was inverted, so that the $$ being thrown at the unproven technologies was being applied to the “alternate” power sources, it seems that results beneficial to all would accrue much more readily.
The current situation. which amounts to “having a punt”, because the “clean coal horse (ridden by geosequestration)” is at “long odds” seems pretty useless to me. Sure, it may pay off, but in all likelihood will not, in which case, we’ve “done our dough”, and lost the advantages we could have gained through a more intelligent approach to the problems being faced (backing the “favorites” if you like).
Until we, as a species, manage to curb our desire (sic) for a sense of immortality via offspring, then in 60 years time there will be *twice* as many consumers on this planet.
Therefore, just to maintain the status quo, we would need to reduce carbon emissions to 50% of *current* values.
To actually improve the situation requires that emissions be reduced by much more than that, and *that* implies that the lifestyle we enjoy will deteriorate in quality.
That’s a great reply Steve and it makes me more in favour of clean coal. Clean coal can be made viable simply by enforcing property rights, as the cost of buying out surrounding land in around a power station, in order to minimise violation of other’s property rights will be the higher cost alternative.
What you don’t understand is that all of us Australian libertarians have been unmasked by our feathered crusader….
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2650
“Until we, as a species, manage to curb our desire (sic) for a sense of immortality via offspring, then in 60 years time there will be *twice* as many consumers on this planet.
Therefore, just to maintain the status quo, we would need to reduce carbon emissions to 50% of *current* values.”
I think that is how George Monbiot arrived at his conclusion that we need to reduce emissions by 90% (94% in Australia’s case) by 2030. By way of contrast I seem to remember that CSIRO predicts that Australia is on course to increase emissions by 45% by 2030…not really a line line ball decision there!
Remarkably he maintains a sense of optimism in the face of this.
Paul, this isn’t a substantive comment but rather just a thank you for the post. The posts on these topics from you, Brian and Robert M. are very helpful in clearing up confusion in public debate for those of us who aren’t so well informed on these issues.
With tipping points in mind – and a week to date (late March) basking in 4-5 degree above average temperatures, I believe Canberra needs to dust off another ‘River Murray’ takeover. A potential ‘war footing’ energy saving directive coupled with an alternative energy=base load reality needs to be faced up to. Even if the IPCC subsequently calls it alarmist. we’ll be a lot better for the exerise. And the market-driven C credit/offsets scenario will have faced a reality check on what it needs to do to get up to speed on this life threatening issue.
Kim, unrelated question – has Mark changed his email address in the last year or so? I wanted to contact him about some work-related stuff.
On second thoughts, maybe it’s not unrelated!
I know what we can do in Australia, let the land recover from the livestock industry, let the air recover from the livestock industry. It’s supposedly one of the biggest factors in climate change and moreso for pollution in general, and arguably one of the more simple environmental offenders to cut into size.
Tony, for those astute enough to find it, it’s in the “About Mark Bahnisch” section of the sidebar
mbahnisch (at) gmail (dot) com
Anyhow, It’s mostly about values and lifestyle. With materialistic values, we won’t get far, because we’ll be too short sighted. Wallerstein’s latest comment is a goody.
Changes in lifestyle need to be based on changes in ideology. This won’t happen until *after* it all goes to shit.
It doesn’t mean we should use time and money to abate this problem, it means we need to grow up.
Whoops! Sorry about that, Chief! Thanks, Kim.
No it doesn’t mean we need to grow up Alastair. If you read Wallerstein’s well made main points carefully, you’ll really see it means we need to grow poor. That’s why here in Ranndom ‘we’(he) signed the 2050 Pledge and carry on business as usual. eg 2 new fossil fuel (gas) fired plants on the drawing board.
The facts are that commercial geothermal power is probably as far away as geo-sequestration, solar doesn’t work at night and the lights don’t glow when the wind don’t blow, which means a limit to these for base load.(well unless you like random blackouts) What does that leave? Gulp goes Peter Garrett!
Then we have to find something else to run all those reciprocating piston engines, unless it’s back to the horse and ox. It’s not that we don’t want to grow up, it’s just that we don’t want to be bloody poor like most of the world. Neither do they. Surprise, surprise eh lefties?
You know a few weeks back The Advertiser published a list of the largest users of water in the driest state in the driest continent and have a guess who bobbed up at no 11 and no 20? Our two sandstone universities. You know, the places where all that conspicuous concern emanates from so readily. We won’t ask how they rank for power useage as it might get really embarassing.
Can I break something gently to the morally indignant left, that we really need to grow up. Poor people in poor countries don’t get the Unemployment Benefit, Sickness Benefit, Aged, Invalid and Supporting Parents pensions, Youth allowance, free hospital care, university education,etc, etc. Have a guess why they don’t? Hint: It has something to do with their low CO2 emissions. When was the last time you built a mud hut with your bare hands eh?
You can just imagine obby railing against that new fangled electricky that’ll never replace tried and true gaslight.
“You’ll have to have a whole generator in your attic or basement, running 24 hours in the day. just to keep those incandescent globes glowing. Madness!”
Funny how the same people who put so much faith in the market now have so little faith in its ability to deliver economically viable new technologies for the future.
Greener doesn’t equal poorer if legislative will is there. How poor are Sweden, Denmark, Germany, countries well on the way to emissions targets. Using nuclear power admittedly but also among the biggest generators of renewables. More so than Aus anyway. Are their “feed-in” laws that favour renewables a good model?
And flowing on from Joe D’s point above, why does improving energy efficiency (whether through market mechanisms or legislative fiat) equal growing poorer?
I’ve never met a non-energy business that didn’t want to cut energy costs.
Ohh, and another esprit d’thread moment.
How come the same people who say climate change can be dealt with by human ingenunity/the singularity/futurist handwaving as and if it arises, are so down on exploring and developing non carbon-based energy technologies now? I’ve also never met a successful business that didn’t take out some kind of insurance.
Nabs,
Reading this blog and comments they are all making a lot of sense in parts, but is the sum of the parts really just rediscovering Malthus? You know that grim bugger the Industrial Revolution appeared to put an end to, but were we really kidding ourselves?
I’m not against renewables, but just acutely aware of how blackouts affect electoral fortunes (like train delays) Also it’s facile to pretend that our economic miracle has not also been predicated on smart technology conserving resource and energy use. It’s just that this tremendous saving has been dwarfed by a lot more products and for a lot more people. We also need to be aware of diminishing returns to technology. For example, take MrsO’s brand new Mitsubishi Colt. For a bloke who cut his teeth on FJ Holdens this fully automatic, nippy turbine on wheels, ABS brakes, power mirrors and windows, AC, 6 stacker MP3, complete with seat belts and air bags, rated at 5.6 L/100km overall, is a blooming marvel of modern technology and economy. Yet it still relies on the same trusty reciprocating piston engine Henry Ford thrilled my grandparents with. Yes alloys and plastics have cut the weight, smart design the wind resistance and computerised engine/fuel injection management has cut its fuel consumption dramatically BUT, it’s hard to get much more fuel economy improvement out of a sub $20,000 motor car nowadays. The gains are becoming much more marginal or Prius like (bloody expensive) We all need to bear in mind here that the private car was a great leveller and social equaliser in its hey day (prior to congestion, etc) and still is, although it is often taken for granted nowadays.
Let’s go with that.
Clean coal isn’t actually clean, it is just spin. There are still net CO2 greenhouse gas emmission! The latest 400m project (100m provided by Federal Liberals) announced by Labor in Victoria’s Latrobe valley will only bring brown call emissions down the level of black coal emissions.
It is a question of priorities really. Garrett and Howard both claim that we need “a balance and mix of energy sources”, yet Howard immediately leaps to nuclear and “dirty clean coal” (after slashing funding for renewable CRCs in 2004) while Garrett/Rudd throw all the money for research and development into “dirty clean coal” and basically ignore renewables.
We have had 20 panels of the roof of our house for 6 years which produce 75% of our total annual energy requirements. The latest panels are now more than twice as efficient, so we could be net producers. Distributed production is the way to go, with baseload provided by distributed battery banks, but this doesn’t suit industry lobbyists or their Government and Opposition pals.
Are distributed battery banks clean, cheap and safe Peter? I’m always told that they are not.
Peter, it cost a well heeled mate $21,000 less $7000 govt subsidy(taxpayer money) to solar panel his house too a couple of years ago. I understand batteries would double that investment, to be free of the grid and run at night. How on earth are ordinary households going to be able to afford the mortgage payments on that extra investment, let alone depreciation and maintenance? According to the morally concerned, they are being priced out of home ownership now by limited land releases, rising rates and nasty investors. Nice house though Peter, but you really do need to get out in first home buyer country occasionally mate.
Note Peter’s mindless contradiction:
“Clean coal isn’t actually clean, it is just spin.”
“We have had 20 panels of the roof of our house for 6 years which produce 75% of our total annual energy requirements. ”
Huh?
Manufacturing solar panels and then using vehicles to transport them to each of Australia’s approx 10 million residential and commercial dwellings means solar isn’t clean either.
Solar technology contains embedded fossil fuel energy, and arguably at present the embedded energy is too much for it to replace coal etc… Get that, fruitbats? http://www.jeffvail.net/2006/11/energy-payback-from-photovoltaics.html
Properly managed distributed community battery banks would be cleaner than dirty clean coal and safer than nuclear. They may also be cheaper than building new coal or nuclear power stations. The toxic components of batteries are all recyclable at the end of their service life.
I think it would be best to scale battery banks at local community level, rather than have them in individual households where the management would be at the discretion of the householder. Many people could not be bothered with the management overheads.
Where is the government analysis for this? There is lots of hearsay and opinion, but no facts or reports. Ziggy didn’t look into it, he focused on nuclear.
My point is that Labor and Liberal politicians and industry/lobbyists are strongly and relentlessly pushing dirty clean coal and nuclear. Renewables are not being seriously considered except as a token gestures, and neither is public opinion.
Yet there is proof that renewables are viable . . . but only financially when they remove the $8.9b subsidies that fossil fuel industries enjoy and introduce a carbon emissions tax.
These are big issues, but they are urgent. I don’t think the current political process can solve them, mainly due to vested interests and myopia. We need new local ways of acting and thinking to drive the change.
WBB: safe, sure, clean, arguably, but battery banks are very, very far from cheap.
Observa’s numbers on solar systems are about right – to go “off grid”, you need about 20 grand of solar cells, and 20 grand for batteries, for a typical house. Taking into account the cost of capital and depreciation, that’s going to be in the order of a couple of grand a year per household just for the batteries. And it doesn’t really matter whether those batteries are in a central facility or in the home; they will cost about the same.
There is no conspiracy. Solar PV cannot, at the present time, compete with coal, gas, or nuclear for large-scale baseload power, and without substantial cost reductions in both the panels and energy storage it never will (and, remember, it’s chasing a moving target).
EDITED TO ADD: I should add that there might well be a substantial role for grid-connected solar PV for daytime power in the medium-term future if the price of the panels comes down by a factor of 3 or 4 or so, as promised for the next decade.
As to the original point of the post: I’m not sure what combination of renewable, energy conservation, and possibly natural gas would be required to make 20-30% cuts by 2020. But if carbon permits are scarce enough, baseload coal will be pushed out of the market anyway.
The key thing to be focussing on is setting the targets for cuts, and I would agree with Brian’s view that we should be aiming for substantial cuts in the next 15-20 years.
I would support a moratorium on new coal power until we can agree on a carbon pricing scheme, however.
Steve M, while that link asks some good questions, its answers are atrocious. There are many factors unrelated to energy use that make PVs expensive at the moment – trying to estimate the energy return rate based on cost is a very bad way to do it. If you look at the factors he adds most of them are trivial – the cost of transporting PVs around the world in energy terms is much less than the cost of shipping goods that need to be frozen, and the PVs last for decades, where that weight of food would probably keep people for a few months.
In the 70s when the “solar not nuclear” stickers were all over cars active solar systems were hideously expensive – totally uncompetitive. Over the years the price has come down as a result of technological improvement and economies of scale. The cost of the production is still too high to be competitive without priceing the environmental cost of coal in, but there are technologies that are at prototype stage (or beyond) that will bring this down so that, in sunny climates at least production will be cheaper than fossil fuels.
As people have pointed out the problem is storage – current methods are expensive and, in some cases, pollution. However, if we used solar as our primary form of daytime power and gas for nighttime/cloudy winter days we could slash fuel emissions from electricity at a cost which would hardly bankrupt the economy. What is more, while storage technology has improved far more slowly, there are some hopeful signs out there.
On the other hand, geosequestration from coal (as opposed to the very different situation on oil fields) requires several technological breakthroughs that are not even at prototype stage. I know which horse I’m backing.
Stephen L, I resopect your opinions and regard as one of the more intelligent Greens, but the fact remains that 80% of all fossil fuels are coal and economic powerhouses China and America- among others- sit on a a Mt Everest of coal.
Coal will continue to be the major source of baseload electricity for the next half century no matter what any Greeny says. Hence it is pragmatic and economically opportune for Australia to be at the forefront of clean cloal technology.
You are also wrong in saying geosequestration isn’t even at the prototype stage as the first prototype project is now underway. http://www.co2crc.com.au/MEDIA/06/SupplementaryBid.pdf
Irrespective of the above, the Australian developed “sliver” solar technology looks promising. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1865651.htm
Nonetheless, even if it lives up to its promise, the 600 coal fired power stations China and India alone currently have on the drawing board are still going to be built.
So what? This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop all new coal mining and instead devote resources to wind/solar/geothermal etc etc
Denmark is already 20% wind and selling loads of tech into old economies in the US and India and China.
The quicker we get off coal, the quicker we get first adopter advantages (as if – but I’m talking hypothetically) and more importantly the less CO2 pollutes the atmosphere.
Oh bugger. Wish I’d been online earlier today to contribute earlier in this debate…
Thanks very much, Paul, for the great post. I agreed with much of it – the main exception being your point that Australia dropping coal exports would be useless. I think it would be a highly significant geopolitical move which would re-shape the global energy debate.
So sad, then, to come to the first comment. Oh dear.
I will post later this evening with a breakdown of how we could meet such a target (or an even greater one). Suffice it to say for the time being that, with energy efficiency and the various renewable energy technologies that are available now, it is really not hard.
Quick note to steve munn:
“it is extremely unlikely that major base load solar, geothermal or wind power stations could be up and running anywhere near 2020″.
Try telling that to the Californians. Or the Swedes. Or the Austrians, Danes, Germans, Spanish, Icelanders, Philippinos, etc. All of them have been getting significant baseload power for a long time now, from technologies as varied as solar thermal, geothermal, bioenergy, hydro power, etc, etc, etc.
And to those who say solar stops working at night, solar thermal power stations using molten salts or high pressure liquids / air as heat storage, are already supplying power 24/7. It is a reality.
Geosequestration is not.
Timmy,
Try telling China and India to take those 600 new coal-fired power stations off the drawing-board.
Sweden generates 40% of its electricity for hydro. Obviously Australia cannot do this. Likewise Iceland has numerous acticve volcaoes, hotsprings etc.. Once again, Australia doesn’t.
Your examples actually prove my point.
And try telling several thousand Australian coal miners and their families to go fuck themselves.
Steve M, the prototype you link to is not, in fact, a prototype of a coal power station with geosequestration. It is merely the first attempt in Australia to geosequester carbon dioxide.
Earlier, you and others referred to Norway, and the Sleipner project. This is so far the only test of geosequestering carbon dioxide which has not leaked. EVERY OTHER test has started to leak, including one in the US in geological formations very similar to those that would be used in Australia. The carbon dioxide is already beginning to corrode the surrounding rock, after only a few years. That would undoubtedly lead to leakage in the foreseeable future, let alone in the multi-millennial timeframe that we need storage to be safe for.
I find it interesting that, of all the posts here, only one so far has even vaguely addressed the question of coal and geosequestration’s long term environmental sustainability. It is important to remember that burying carbon dioxide in a supercritical liquid form is passing on to future generations a legacy as dangerous as nuclear waste. If it escapes, all environmental benefits of its sequestration would be lost, and there is the very real potential for great loss of life.
So, we have the choice – go for renewable technologies and energy efficiency, which can address the problem now and leave no toxic legacy. Or wait twenty years to apply a solution which is unproven, dangerous and passes on serious problems to the next generation.
I want to very quickly set out an example of how we can meet 30% cuts by 2030. I think we can go much further if we want to, but this is an important first step to make.
The first thing to do is to take advantage of the massive opportunities for energy efficiency. A COAG paper from a few years ago called Towards a National Framework for Energy Efficiency set out that we could achieve cuts of up to 30% in energy use across all sectors of the Australian economy immediately, using off-the-shelf technologies available now, limiting use to actions with a payback of no more than 4 years. That’s anything from lightbulbs to combined heat and power.
I’ll repeat that. We could reduce energy use by 30% now, with a net economic benefit and an investment that would pay itself off in 4 years.
Now, since stationary energy accounts for close enough to 50% of our domestic emissions, achieving that level of efficiency would reduce our emissions by 15% immediately.
Half way there.
That leaves energy accounting for 35% of current emissions levels. So we’d need to make around 60% of our energy supply zero emissions to meet our target from energy alone. That is entirely achievable.
It is demonstrated that wind power could supply 20% of our energy supply without any adverse impact on stability of the grid. We could reach that level within 10 years with the right incentives in place.
Bioenergy, a mature technology that is terribly underappreciated in Australia, could supply another 20% of our energy by 2020, again with the right incentives. Bioenergy is baseload and it runs throught the night. It can be ramped up fast when demand increases, or reduced correspondingly. Very flexible.
Then there is solar thermal. California has had several 400MW solar thermal plants operating for many years, and are now building new ones. We have such a huge resource here in Australia that all of our needs could be supplied by solar thermal plants covering only 35sq km. Solar Heat and Power reckon they could begin building 1GW plants within a few years. and they could easily build one a year. Start in 2009, and by 2020 you have 11 GW of steady baseload power, using stored heat to continue providing power through the night.
Add wave power and probably geothermal by then, and the need for geosequestration or nukes goes right out the window.
Of course, I’ve ignored transport, agriculture, land clearing, etc. Add them and we could go well past 30% reductions by 2020.
Will expand further on this when I have the time.
Tim says:
“Earlier, you and others referred to Norway, and the Sleipner project. This is so far the only test of geosequestering carbon dioxide which has not leaked. EVERY OTHER test has started to leak, including one in the US in geological formations very similar to those that would be used in Australia.”
Please provide evidence for this claim, Tim, as it contradicts everything I have read, icluding this- http://discovermagazine.com/2006/dec/clean-coal-technology/?page=3
Note how the Polk coal-fired power station has been capturing and sequestering gases (NO2 and sulphur) for a decade without any problems.
Also be aware that a variety of gases have been naturally geosequestered for millions of years.
Finally, according to the 2005 IPCC, the world has the capacity to geosequester 1.2 trillion tons of CO2. If we believe the IPCC on climate change, then why not believe them on this? http://allocasuarina.blogspot.com/2007/02/future-of-coal.html
Clearly you have let ideology cloud your judgement.
Absolutely Tim – the “no renewable baseload” position increasingly looks to be a conservative-cultural assertion, rather than scientific fact.
I suspect it will ultimately go the way of climate denialism – into the irrlevance of the fringe. While there’s still work to be done on denialism mark 2 (its happening, but we cant DO anything radical about it); my guess is we’ll have the market onside this time- as innovation gets rewarded by consumers.
tim – thanks for all the great information.
One question not particularly well addressed with regards to wind power providing 20% of grid energy is “which 20%”?
If you’re shutting down natural gas fired plants when there’s wind power available (which are the ones that can power up and down most readily) it’s not going to cut carbon emissions by 20%, as natural gas power is less carbon-intensive than coal.
One final point. There is very selective skepticism towards various technologies here – belief that everything the developers of renewable technology developers claim will pan out, and a ferocious skepticism towards everything that the geosequestration and/or nuclear industry claims.
Robert, that’s why we need engineers to help us come to terms with the various technologies.
So then should decisions as to which technologies prevail be left entirely to the market, or do we need experts (or politicians) to decide where the market needs a nudge?
Realising that nuclear has other dimensions that concern everyone.
tim, I’d heard of the ferocious corrosiveness of CO2 in liquid form. I assume it needs to be turned into liquid because of its great volume as a gas. But I seem to recall that it takes a lot of power to condense into a liquid.
Robert M,
According to one of the panellists (forget which one) on ABCs Difference of Opinion, modelling demonstrates wind power has base load potential IF the wind turbines are spaced out over a sufficiently large area. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/abc2/200703/programs/FA0614H006D21032007T203100.htm
I don’t know enough to judge whether this will ever be practical.
Further information about concentrating solar power (CSP) may be found at:
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/index.htm
and
http://www.trecers.net/index.html
and
http://www.trec.net.au/
Responses to responses. I’m so glad I’ve graduated from lurker to active LP debater
1) Steve Munn, note that Polk is not coal with geosequestration of CO2. This is what I am talking about. Geoseq proponents always bring up different examples and attempt to pass them off as identical. They are not. There is no example anywhere in the world of a coal fired power station capturing and sequestering CO2 – successfully or otherwise.
2) provide evidence for my claim – I have it in a pers comm from an IPCC geoseq panellist from Germany. Unfortunately, much of the information that had been in the public domain is being quietly removed. The US DOE had a fascinating study showing that their trial and others are already corroding rock. It is no longer available on the web. How strange. Ditto a CSIRO study into geoseq showing it is highly questionable – never been publicy available. Maybe because it was paid for under the new PPP research policy by coal corporations? Call me a cynic…
3) Natural sequestration? Of course it exists. Does that mean we should assume that we could artificially do it as well as nature can over billions of years? The point is, nature doesn’t pump gas underground and seek to keep it there. The gases that are naturally sequestered are formed in their geological formations over immense time periods. We then tap into them to use them as a resource. Very very different situation.
4) IPCC is a tremendously conservative body as many of its members have been at pains to point out recently. Also note that, just as Howard set up a nukes study instead of a general energy futures study, the IPCC had a geoseq study pushed on them, instead of a future energy options study. Sure, a conservative scientific body will come out saying yes, it might work, there is potential. But they have not set it against the other options, since they haven’t been asked to do so.
5) Robert, on your point about my selective scepticism, please see LeftyE’s comment above. Yes, I probably am somewhat more sceptical of geoseq than renewables and efficiency. This relates directly to the fact that the proponents of geoseq are almost identical to the long term climate sceptic mob. On the other hand, those who have been warning for a decade and more of the dangers of climate change are generally on the renewables and efficiency side. That simple fact says an awful lot.
6) Robert again, you ask which 20% wind would replace. Well, the point is, with well-spaced wind resources across the energy grid, wind will supply a relatively steady amount of energy. This has been demonstrated by overseas experience extrapolated to Australian circumstances by highly experienced energy experts such as Mark Diesendorf (note this is the person referred to in steve m’s comment above [I assume steve m and steve munn are very different people???])
Sometimes wind may replace peak gas (which makes excellent economic sense), sometimes it will substitute for coal. On average, it is likely to substitute across the average supply for the energy grid. That’s why I felt confident to make such a generalisation.
7) Brian, yes CO2 would be stored as a supercritical liquid – supercritical because it is kept that way by pressure. To keep it in that form, it must be stored in very solid geological formations at least 800m below the ground. This combination of factors also means that any leakage is likely to be catastrophic. Once a leak starts, it would be extremely difficult to stop it. And, whoops, there goes all your efforts to store carbon in that aquifer and you need to somehow suck it out of the atmosphere. Branson reckons you can do that. I’d rather not risk it.
Finally, that brings me back to the point that Robert Merkel raised – why am I ferociously sceptical of geoseq but not of renewables?
It comes to this. Geoseq is a risk. A huge risk. We would have to assume that the CO2 we store will stay there essentially forever – or at least long enough to no longer pose a climate risk. If it doesn’t, the whole investment is lost.
On the other hand, if we make the shift to renewables and efficiency, the climate risk is effectively eliminated. If you don’t produce the pollutant in the first place, you have nothing to worry about.
Are there risks with the renewables and efficiency approach? Sure, there probably are. If you rely too much on tidal power and the sea levels rise and swamp your power stations, you’ve lost your investment. If you rely too much on bioenergy you may end up with direct competition between fuel stocks and food. Not good. If you rely too much on hydro and droughts get worse, you’ve got problems. That’s why we should look for a broad and diverse mix of technologies.
And then theres the point that, when you press really hard for justification for taking the geoseq risk, the answer you will always get is ‘because coal accounts for so much of our energy use’. In other words, because of the status quo, the future can’t be any different. Well, no, actually. Whatever we do, we have to change our energy systems radically. whether it’s to coal with geosequestration or to renewables.
It’s a logical fallacy to say that because we rely on coal now, we will have to rely on coal with geoseq into the future.
Please tell me if my posts are too long. I am a novice at this and tend to go on at length…
steve m, I think it was Mark Diesendorf who was keen on wind power and suggesting it could be installed on farms without losing any productive capacity of the land.
Gerry, thanks for dropping in again. I was thinking of looking up the other thread to find the reference to TREC. I understand that our coal powered electricity is a lot cheaper than electricity in Europe, but I’m not sure how much difference that makes.
tim, your posts are fine. They only become too long if what you say is irrelevant. Yours are fine.
By the way, here an informative article, very much pro-geoseq but still raises key issues:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=4D9BFC3D-E7F2-99DF-3E6E1A60C23D44E6&chanID=sa003
Brian, CSIRO reckons that solar thermal will be directly cost competitive with Australian coal power in seven years. THis is in a report that has also been removed from the public domain. However, I have a copy I can send to people if they wish. Too big to email, but can be skyped… Let me know if you’d like to see it.
Tim, thanks for taking the time and effort to supply this – very informative.
Excellent summing-up, tim. A strawberries ‘n’ cream scratch and sniff for you after recess.
Tim, I reckon the go would be to get Robert M to do a post on it, because he understands the technical stuff better than I do. I’m out now for the day, but I might email you tonight.
I hate to resort to a cheap shot, but I’m going to anyway…
Mark Diesendorf also thinks that flouride saps our precious bodily fluids.
Tim, everything is a risk – and the risk you are ignoring is that renewables will be much more costly than claimed and that they therefore won’t be adopted.
Ultimately, there is a backstop alternative for carbon sequestration that pretty much eliminates the risks you describe – mineral sequestration (combining with metal oxides to make, well, rocks). Like renewables, it is a question of cost.
Oh Jesus, so Mark Diesendorf turns out to be another anti-fluoride nutter.
Sadly I’ve noted the Green side of politics attracts these people like bears to a honey pot.
Robert M rightly points out the inherently contradictory nature of what Tim is saying. And Tim has been unable to substantiate his claim that all examples of CO2 sequestration leak. Instead he resorts to a conspiracy theory.
I can only shake my head when I read this in the article Tim links to: “There remains a scientific consensus on viability (for CO2 geosequestration). Implementation is a different issue.”
Once again, if we are to believe the so-called scientific consensus on global warming, then why not also believe the apparent consensus on the viablity of CO2 geosequestration? Why pick and choose?
We are happy to spend $5 or $10 billion on defense measures to protect against slim possibilities out in the future. Why can’t we spend $5 or 10 billion on renewable energy technology to protect against the certainty of global warming?
Why not indeed?
I agree with both wbb and Kim.
Cancel the $6 billion defence aircraft deal and withdraw from East Timor, Iraq and the Solomons and phase out aid to PNG and instead put the money into renewables.
wbb: I would quibble about focussing exclusively on renewables, but the point is quite well made.
Some brief comments passing through.
1. I’m Paul, not Brian. I’m not sure which of us has been more grievously defamed by Robert M’s mistaking our identity.
2. Mark Diesendorf’s views on fluoridation are as relevant to the debate on wind power as Fred Hollows’ views on HIV/AIDS and communism are to scientific debates on optical medicine – and as Bob Carter’s views on climate change are to scientific debates on marine biology in which he is a reputable authority.
3. Given Australia’s budgetary situation in recent years, we can afford to take up wbb’s suggestion re renewables (or a suite of greenhouse responses including gas, energy efficiency, conservation, etc.) without the disengagements suggested in Steve M’s ironic comment. We could also afford it if we did something about the various overt and hidden public subsidies to unsustainable practices, and did something about costing and recovering uncosted social and environmental externalities of production and consumption (which is what things like carbon taxes are about).
4. Returning to the point of the original post, targets of 50, 60 or even 90 per cent emissions reductions by 2050 are pious in the absence of the 2020 targets suggested (and being adopted in some jurisdictions) and decisive measures to achieve those targets (which must include a suite of measures other than “clean coal”). 2050 targets in the absence of 2020 targets are warm inner glow stuff which don’t require present-day politicians to do anything of substance during their present and forseeable future political careers, and could encourage the attitude that we can get away with business-as-usual because “something will come up” in about 2030 or 2040 to save our bacon.
I’m very sorry about the name thing.
As to Diesendorf, it’s become fairly common practice (and one that I would agree with) to point out that some of the climate change denialists are, for instance, the same people that denied a link between smoking and cancer.
He might be right about wind power’s viability if you have a large enough grid (though just how big and expensive do the interconnections have to get?), but he regularly makes flatly erroneous claims about nuclear power. So you’ll pardon me if I have a little skepticism to any argument relying on him as an authority.
Name calling Steven M…Dr Diessendorf an “anti fluoridation nutter”..hm..Just like nobel prize winning Arvid Carlsson, Edward Weary Dunlop, Dr Fred Hollows, Dr Walbott, Dr Yiamouyiannous, Dr J Colquhoun, Dr Phillip Sutton, Dr Hardy Limeback, Dr Roy Kupsinel, Dr David kennedy…oh an almost endless list of world respected doctors etc… but to Steve M he’s a nutter. Oh well sticks and stones…last resort of stupidity and lack of knowledge.
So in Steve M’s sort of mind…someone who has a differeing opinion must be a nutter.
Perhaps he would care to take the time to at least access some of the tomes of research on this issue, starting with this
http://fluoridationisforcedmedication.blogspot.com/
blog, but more importantly the links on the left hand side… and tell me that party faithful and brain dead smirks like Tony Abbott, Howard, Rudd, Iemma, Debenham have more than two cells of brains to rub together.
And yes I am name calling, but they are what I say they are. And I have thoroughly researched both sides of the Fluoride research and guess what?
There exists not one sceintifically recognised double blind study in the world which proves the efficience, efficacy and safety of water fluoridation to humans…ask the health dept, the docs, the dentists…they can not produce one at all which satisfys a trained statician, and they have been asked many times…